[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Chandrakukhi Chauhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
1 WP-8654-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
ON THE 7 th OF JANUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 8654 of 2016
SMT. CHANDRAMUKHI CHAUHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Bhanu Prakash Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati - Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That, the impugned order Annexures P-1 and P-2 may kindly be
declared as illegal and the same may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to release the withheld
increments and do the consequential fixation of salary of petitioner.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
may also be given to the petitioner along-with costs."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is employed
as ANM and posted as Civil Hospital Gwalior. On 21.08.2013, it was Government
holiday being the Raksha Bandhan festival and petitioner was at her home when
she got the information about her brother not being well and petitioner proceeded
to see her brother, who resides in Lahar District Bhind, approximately about 100
K.M. from Gwalior. At the relevant time, due to raining season the condition of
road was bad and due to exertion to travel, the petitioner herself became sick and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
2 WP-8654-2016
suffered Nausea and Diarrhea. The petitioner took treatment at Government
Health Centre at Lahar District Bhind, where Dr. D.C. Prashar gave treatment to
the petitioner and advised one day rest. Due to sickness, the petitioner could not
report on duty on 22.08.2013. When the petitioner went to the in-charge for taking
headquarter leave, but due to Raksha Bandhan holiday no authority was present to
take her application for headquarter leave and because of information of sudden
illness of her brother, petitioner had to immediately rush to the Lahar where her
brother resides. On 22.08.2013, the petitioner's son went to the office to submit
application for headquarter leave to provide information of sickness of petitioner,
but before that, the Assistant Collector, District Gwalior conducted the inspection
and found the petitioner absent from duty. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued a
show cause notice on 23.08.2013 to the petitioner. Petitioner submitted a detailed
reply to the aforesaid show cause notice mentioning the above facts.
3. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that, without
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, despite the petitioner having
denied the charges, and without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, the
Collector, Gwalior, by a non-speaking and unreasoned order, imposed a minor
punishment of withholding two annual increments without cumulative effect.
Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority,
which was partly allowed on 28.06.2016, and the punishment was modified to
withholding of one annual increment without cumulative effect. It is further
submitted that without considering the reply submitted by the Petitioner and
without dealing with the facts and grounds raised by the petitioner non-speaking
and unreasoned punishment order dated 09-10-2013 has been issued by the
Collector Gwalior. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as the
respondents/Disciplinary Authority has not assigned reasons for rejecting the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
3 WP-8654-2016
petitioner's reply is contrary to judgment reported in M/S Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr vs Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that there is no
infirmity in the order of punishment since petitioner was found guilty of
dereliction of duties and therefore after ascertaining the charges it was found that
petitioner had failed to discharge the duties, therefore, aforementioned orders
passed by the authority is absolutely proportionate and warrants no interference. It
is further submitted that the appellate authority has also examined the entire
record and on perusal of the material, the order of the competent authority was
affirmed by the appellate authority. Hence after having proper adjudication of the
matter by the appellate authority nothing remains to be interfered in the present
matter and petition prima-facie being devoid of substance deserves to be
dismissed. It is further submitted that the only scope of interference in the cases of
punishment is to examine the manner in which departmental enquiry is
conducted. In the present case the departmental enquiry was conducted keeping in
view of the norms of natural justice and fair play. On these grounds he prays for
rejection of this petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Important part of the punishment order dated 09.10.2013 is quoted herein
below:-
"3/ ीमती चौहान के व जार कारण बताओ नो टस, उनके ारा तुत
उ र एवं करण से संबंिधत सुसंगत अिभलेख का अ ययन कया गया।
अ ययन उपरा त पाया गया क दनांक 22-08-2013 को सहायक कले टर
ारा िस वल हॉ पीटल वािलयर का आक मक िनर ण कया गया था।
िनर ण के दौरान अपचार कमचार अपने कत य से अनुप थत पाई गई।
इस कार उनके ारा तुत कया गया उ र कसी भी कोण से
समाधानकारक होना नह ं पाया जाता है । अतः उनके उ आचरण के िलये
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
4 WP-8654-2016
म य दे श िस वल सेवा (वग करण, िनयं ण एवं अपील) िनयम, 1966 के
िनयम-10 के तहत ् उनक दो वा षक वेतनवृ असंचयी भाव से रोकने के
द ड से द डत कया जाकर करण समा कया जाता है ।"
7. From perusal of the punishment order issued by the Disciplinary
Authority dated 09.10.2013, it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority while
passing an order imposing punishment upon the petitioner, is exercising quasi
judicial power and even the quasi judicial order must be a speaking order. The
Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind to the entire facts and circumstances
and record valid and justifiable reason and all grounds in support of its conclusion.
8. On perusal of the punishment order, it does not appear to be a speaking
one.
9. It is a settled position in law that when a discretion is vested in an
authority to exercise a particular power, the same is required to be exercised with
due diligence, and in reasonable and rational manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
in catena of decisions has reiterated time and again the necessity and importance
of giving reasons by the authority in support of its decision. It has been held that
the face of an order passed by a quasi-judicial authority or even by an
administrative authority affecting the rights of parties must speak. The affected
party must know how his case or defence was considered before passing the
prejudicial order.
10. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
Punjab v/s. Bandip Singh and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724 is relevant to
quote. In the said decision it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that
every decision of an administrative or executive nature must be a composite and
self-sustaining one, in that it should contain all the reasons which prevailed on the
official taking the decision to arrive at his conclusion.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
5 WP-8654-2016
11. In the same judgment in paragraph 7, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
clarifies that the Government does not have carte blanche to take any decision it
chooses to; it cannot take a capricious, arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its
decision must be informed and impregnated with reasons. Paragraph 7 of the said
decision is quoted as under:-
"7. The same principle was upheld more recently in Ram Kishun v.
State of U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 382. However,
we must hasten to clarify that the Government does not have a carte
blanche to take any decision it chooses to; it cannot take a capricious,
arbitrary or prejudiced decision. Its decision must be informed and
impregnated with reasons.
This has already been discussed threadbare in several decisions of this
Court, including in Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N Publications Ltd
(1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651,
Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617,
B.S.N. Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC
548 and Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517".
12. Also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti
Associates Pvt. Ltd. and another v/s Masood Ahmed Khan and others cited in
(2010) 9 SCC 496 highlights this point. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph
15 opined that the face of an order passed by a quasi judicial authority or even an
administrative authority affecting the rights of parties, must speak. It must not be
like the inscrutable face of a sphinx. In paragraph 47 the Honb'le Supreme Court
summarized its discussion. The relevant sub-paragraphs of the said summary are
quoted as under:-
"47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds:
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a
decisionmaking process as observing principles of natural justice by
judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law
and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based
on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-
making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
6 WP-8654-2016
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as
different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these
decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by
reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This
is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery
system.
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad
doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now
virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of
Stasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR
553, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford 2001 EWCA Civ
405 (CA), wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European
Convention of Human Rights which requires,"adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
13. As disciplinary authority has issued a non-speaking and unreasoned
order, therefore, in absence of reason in the punishment order cannot be
compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order, therefore, the
argument of counsel for respondent is not sustainable that the appellate order is
reasoned and speaking order. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Oryx
Fisheries Pvt.Ltd vs Union Of India & Ors; (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as
under:-
"41. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering
various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the
judgment which are set out below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record
reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions
affect anyone prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support
of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the
wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done
it must also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on
any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial
or even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the
decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding
extraneous considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
7 WP-8654-2016
component of a decision making process as observing
principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and
even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by
superior Courts.
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to
rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of
reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually
the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the
principle that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be
as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them.
All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to
demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the
litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial
accountability and transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid
enough about his/her decision making process then it is
impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful
to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of
incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and
succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is
not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non
of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in
decision making not only makes the judges and decision
makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to
broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial
Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from
the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of human rights
and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See
(1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the
Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of
Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent
reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all
common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in
setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for
development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the
decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due
Process".
42. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons. However,
absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by
disclosure of reason in the appellate order.
43. In Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
8 WP-8654-2016
others,(1986) 4 SCC 537, it has been held:
"......after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is
difficult to contemplate complete restitution through an
appellate decision. Such a case is unlike an action for money
or recovery of property, where the execution of the trial
decree may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful appeal
may result in refund of the money or restitution of the
property, with appropriate compensation by way of interest
or mesne profits for the period of deprivation. And,
therefore, it seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure
that there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the
original proceeding, and to avoid treating an appeal as an
overall substitute for the original proceeding."
44. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court quashes the show cause notice
as also the order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the third respondent. In
view of that, the appellate order has no legs to stand and accordingly is
quashed."
14. The Division Bench of this High Court, Bench at Gwalior, in
WA.1736/2023 (Roop Singh Bhadoriya Versus Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra
Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. And Others), passed the order dated 08.01.2025, whereby
the punishment of stoppage of annual increment for one year without cumulative
effect as inflicted upon the petitioner was set-aside and the matter was remitted
back to the disciplinary authority to conduct departmental inquiry and thereafter
pass necessary orders. The relevant contents of order dated 08.01.2025 are
reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:-
"8. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in specific terms had
observed that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to decide,
for reasons to be recorded, whether a regular enquiry should be held or
not. If he decides not to hold a regular enquiry and proceeds to decide
the matter summarily the employee can always challenge the minor
punishment imposed on the ground that the decision not to hold a
inquiry was an arbitrary decision. In that event, the Court or Tribunal
will in exercise of power of judicial review has to examine whether the
decision of the Disciplinary Authority not to hold an enquiry was
arbitrary or not. Further, if the Court/Tribunal holds that the decision
was arbitrary then such decision not to hold an enquiry and the
consequential imposition of punishment will be quashed. Thus, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
9 WP-8654-2016
imperative and as has been held by learned Single Judge that the
discretion which is vested in the authority is to be exercised reasonably
and objectively and it should not be guided by arbitrariness, it was
required for the disciplinary authority to have recorded reasons for not
conducting regular inquiry but from bare perusal of the order dated
21.04.2011 (Annexure P/1), it would be evident that no such
satisfaction has been recorded as to why departmental inquiry was not
required to be held.
9. Learned Single Judge has also gone into the aspect that since the
petitioner was inflicted with minor penalty of stoppage of annual
increment for one year without cumulative effect, therefore, he would
receive the benefit of grant of increment after the period of one year is
over, therefore, no adversity would have caused in the pensionary
benefits in the matter also does not appears to be correct proposition as
definitely, due to stoppage of annual increment for one year, the
petitioner would not only suffer less payment for the rest of the service
period less by one increment till his retirement but would also in
proportionate would receive lesser payment of retiral benefits including
gratuity, pension, etc. Similarly, he will be also losing proportionate
amount in the contribution to provident fund, thus, financial loss would
be caused to the appellant, therefore, in that event, when the appellant
had denied the allegations levelled against him in the show cause
notice, the department ought to have conducted the departmental
inquiry. Thus, in the aforesaid context, the order dated 08.09.2023
passed in W.P. No.7788/2011 by learned Single Judge does not
appears to be in-conformity with the legal position and the same is
hereby set-aside.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 21.04.2011 whereby punishment of
stoppage of annual increment for one year without cumulative effect
was inflicted upon the petitioner is hereby set-aside. The matter is
remitted back to the disciplinary authority to conduct departmental
inquiry and thereafter pass necessary orders."
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Food Corporation of India Vs.
A. Prahalada Rao [(2001) 1 SCC 165], has held that, "holding of regular
departmental enquiry is a discretionary power of the disciplinary authority which
is to be exercised by considering the facts of each case and if it is misused or used
arbitrarily, it would be subject to judicial review. In the case at hand, no material
has been commended at to establish that the disciplinary authority, assigned any
reasons for not holding the departmental enquiry".
16. Furthermore, a Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and Anr.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
10 WP-8654-2016
Vs. C.P. Singh [2004 (2) MPJR 252] had an occasion to examine the issue as to
whether an inquiry can be dispensed with, in all cases where the penalty proposed
is recovery of pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders categorized
as minor penalty? Their lordships taking note of decisions in C.R. Warrier Vs.
State of Kerala (1983 (1) SLR 608), V. Srinivasa Rao Vs. Shyamsunder (ILR
1989 Ker. 3455); G. Sundaram Vs. General Manager, Disciplinary Authority,
Canara Bank (ILR 1998 Kar. 4005); O.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Union of India and others
[(2001) 9 SCC 180] and Food Corporation of India Vs. A. Prahalada Rao [(2001)
1 SCC 165] were pleased to observe:
"16. The position as can be gathered from the Rules and the aforesaid
decisions can be summarised thus:
(i) In a summary inquiry, a show cause notice is issued informing the
employee about the proposal to take disciplinary action against him and
of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour on which such action
is proposed to be taken. The employee is given an opportunity of
making a representation against the proposal. The Disciplinary
Authority considers the records and the representation and records of
findings on each of the imputations of misconduct.
(ii) In a regular inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority draws up the articles
of charge and it is served on the employee with a statement of
imputation of misconduct, list of witnesses and list of documents relied
on by the Department. The Disciplinary Authority calls upon
the employee to submit his defence in writing. On considering the
defence; the Disciplinary Authority considers the same and decides
whether the inquiry should be proceeded with, or the charges are to be
dropped. If he decides to proceed with the enquiry, normally an
Inquiring Authority is appointed unless he decides to hold the inquiry
himself. A Presenting Officer is appointed to present the case. The
employee is permitted to take the assistance of a coemployee or others
as provided in the rules. An inquiry is held where the evidence is
recorded in the presence of the employee. The employee is permitted to
inspect the documents relied upon by the employer. The employee is
also permitted to call for other documents in the possession of the
Management which are in his favour. The delinquent employee is
given an opportunity to rebut the evidence of the management by cross-
examining the management witnesses and by producing his evidence
both documentary and oral. Arguments-written and/or oral-are
received/heard. The delinquent employee is given full opportunity to
put forth his case. Therefore, the Inquiring Authority submits his
report. The copy of the report is furnished to the employee and his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
11 WP-8654-2016
representation is received. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority
considers all the material and passes appropriate orders. The detailed
procedure for such inquiries is contained in subrules (6) to (25) of Rule
9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968
corresponding to subrules (3) to (23) of Rule 14 of the Central' Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 and M.R Civil Services (CCA) Rules,
1966.
(iii) The normal rule, except where the employee admits guilt, is to
hold a regular inquiry. But where the penalty proposed is a 'minor
penalty', then the Rules give the Disciplinary Authority a discretion to
dispense with a regular inquiry for reasons to be recorded by him, and
hold only a summary enquiry.
(iv) Though the Rules contemplate imposing a minor penalty without
holding a regular enquiry, where the Disciplinary Authority is of the
opinion that such enquiry is not necessary, such decision not to hold an
enquiry can be only for valid reasons, recorded in writing.
Dispensation with a regular enquiry where minor penalty is proposed,
should be in cases which do not in the very nature of things require an
enquiry, for example, (a) cases of unauthorised absence where absence
is admitted but some explanation is given for the absence; (b)
noncompliance with or breach of lawful orders of official superiors
where such breach is admitted but it is contended that it is not wilful
breach; (c) where the nature of charge is so simple that it can easily be
inferred from undisputed or admitted documents; or (d) where it is not
practicable to hold a regular enquiry.
(v) But, even where the penalty proposed is categorised as minor
penalty, if the penalty involves withholding increments of pay which is
likely to affect adversely the amount of pension (or special contribution
to provident fund payable to the employee), or withholding increments
of pay for a period exceeding three year or withholding increments of
pay with cumulative effect for any period, then it is incumbent upon
the disciplinary authority to hold a regular inquiry.
(vi) Position before decision in FCI: Where the charges are factual and
the charges are denied by the employee or when the employee requests
for an inquiry or an opportunity to put forth the case, the discretion of
the Disciplinary Authority is virtually taken away and it is imperative
to hold a regular inquiry.
Position after decision in FCI: Where the Rules give a discretion to the
Disciplinary Authority to either hold a summary enquiry or regular
enquiry, it is not possible to say that the Disciplinary Authority should
direct only a regular enquiry, when an employee denies the charge or
requests for an inquiry. Even in such cases, the Disciplinary Authority
has the discretion to decide, for reasons to be recorded, whether a
regular enquiry should be held or not. If he decides not to hold a
regular enquiry and proceeds to decide the matter summarily,
the employee can always challenge the minor punishment imposed, on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
12 WP-8654-2016
the ground that the decision not to hold a regular enquiry was an
arbitrary decision. In that event, the Court or Tribunal will in exercise
of power of judicial review, examine whether the decision of the
Disciplinary Authority not to hold an enquiry was arbitrary. If the
Court/Tribunal holds that the decision was arbitrary, then such decision
not to hold an enquiry and the consequential imposition of punishment
will be quashed. If the Court/Tribunal holds that the decision was not
arbitrary, then the imposition of minor penalty will stand.
17. It is also possible to read the decisions in Bharadwaj and FCI
harmoniously, if Bharadwaj is read as stating a general principle,
without reference to any specific rules, that it is incumbent upon the
Disciplinary Authority to hold a regular enquiry, even for imposing a
minor penalty, if the charge is factual and the charge is denied by the
employee. On the other hand, the decision in FCI holding that the
Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to dispense with a regular
enquiry, even where the charge is factual and the employee denies the
charge, is with reference to the specific provisions of a Rule vesting
such discretion.
18. There is yet another aspect which requires to be noticed. Where the
penalty to be imposed though termed as minor, is likely to materially
affect the employee either financially or career-wise then it is not
possible to dispense with a regular enquiry. In fact, this is evident from
sub-rule (2) of Rule-11 which says that where the penalty to be
imposed, though termed as minor penalty, involves withholding of
increments which is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension or
special contribution to provident fund, or withholding of increments of
pay for a period exceeding three years or withholding of increments of
pay with cumulative effect, then an enquiry as contemplated under
Rule-9 (6) to (25) is a must. Thus, categorisation of penalties into
'major' and 'minor' penalties, by itself may not really be determinative
of the question whether a regular enquiry is required or not.
19. While 'censure' and withholding of increments of pay for specified
period may conveniently be termed as minor punishments, we feel very
uncomfortable with 'recovery of pecuniary loss, for negligence or
breach of 'orders' without stipulating a ceiling, being considered as a
'minor penalty'. 'Recovering small amounts, as reimbursement of loss
caused to the employer byway of negligence or breach of orders from
the pay of the employee can be a minor penalty. But can recovery of
huge amounts running into thousands and lakhs, by way of loss
sustained on account of negligence or breach of orders, be called as a
minor penalty ? For example, in this case, recovery sought to be made
from the petitioner is Rs. 75,525/- determined as being 50% of the total
value of 74 rail posts. Theoretically, what would be the position if the
loss was 740 or 7400 rail posts.? Does it mean that recovery of Rs. 7.5
lakhs or Rs. 75 lakhs can be ordered from the Government servant,
still terming it as a minor penalty, without holding any enquiry ? It is
time that the State and authorities take a second look as what is termed
as 'minor penalty' with reference to recovery of losses. The recovery of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
13 WP-8654-2016
pecuniary loss on account of negligence or breach of order though
termed as a minor penalty may have disastrous consequences, affecting
the livelihood of the employee, if the amount sought to be recovered is
huge.
20. In the absence of any ceiling as to the pecuniary loss that can be
recovered by treating it as minor penalty, it is necessary to find out
whether there is any indication of the limit of amount that can be
recovered without enquiry, by applying the procedure for imposition of
minor penalties. We get some indication of the pecuniary limit in Rule-
11 (2) which provides that if the minor penalty involves withholding of
increments of pay for a period exceeding three years then a regular
enquiry is necessary. Thus, we can safely assume that the pecuniary
loss proposed to be recovered exceeds the monetary equivalent of
increments for a period of three years, then a regular enquiry has to be
held.
21. The fastening of pecuniary liability on the basis of negligence or
breach of orders, involves decision on four relevant aspects:
(a) What was the duty of the employee?
(b) Whether there was any negligence or breach of order on the part of
the employee while performing such duties?
(c) Whether the negligence or breach of order has resulted in any
financial loss to the employer?
(d) What is the quantum of pecuniary loss and whether the pecuniary
loss claimed include any remote damage and whether the employer has
taken steps to mitigate the loss?
These are not matters that could be decided without evidence, and
without giving an opportunity to the employee to let in evidence.
Therefore, where the charge of negligence or breach of lawful order is
denied, a regular enquiry is absolutely necessary before fastening
financial liability on the employee, by way of punishment of recovery
of pecuniary loss from the employees. However, having regard to the
decision in FCI, regular inquiry can be dispensed with, for valid
reasons, if the amount to be recovered is small (which in the absence of
a specific provision, does not exceed the equivalent of three years
increment at the time of imposition of penalty). Any attempt to fasten
any higher monetary liability on an employee without a regular
enquiry, by terming it as a minor penalty, would be a travesty of
justice."
17. The careful reading of these decisions and applying the principle of law
in the facts of present case, leaves no iota of doubt that in the case at hand the
disciplinary authority acted arbitrarily in dispensing from holding a regular
departmental enquiry for no recorded reasons. Or even if there were reasons, the
same were not communicated.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:516
14 WP-8654-2016
18. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Roop Singh Bhadoriya
Vs. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd and others (WA
No.1736 of 2023) vide order dated 08.01.2025 has held as under:
"8. The Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in specific terms had
observed that the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to decide,
for reasons to be recorded, whether a regular enquiry should be held or
not. If he decides not to hold a regular enquiry and proceeds to decide
the matter summarily the employee can always challenge the minor
punishment imposed on the ground that the decision not to hold a
inquiry was an arbitrary decision. In that event, the Court or Tribunal
will in exercise of power of judicial review has to examine whether the
decision of the Disciplinary Authority not to hold an enquiry was
arbitrary or not. Further, if the Court/Tribunal holds that the decision
was arbitrary then such decision not to hold an enquiry and the
consequential imposition of punishment will be quashed. Thus, it is
imperative and as has been held by learned Single Judge that the
discretion which is vested in the authority is to be exercised reasonably
and objectively and it should not be guided by arbitrariness, it was
required for the disciplinary authority to have recorded reasons for not
conducting regular inquiry but from bare perusal of the order dated
21.04.2011 (Annexure P/1), it would be evident that no such
satisfaction has been recorded as to why departmental inquiry was not
required to be held."
19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is
allowed and the impugned orders dated 09.10.2013 and 28.06.2016 is hereby
quashed. The respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to petitioner
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. However, the respondents would be at liberty to take action against
petitioner in accordance with law, if so advised.
20. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.
(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Monika
